首页> 外文期刊>Obstetrics and Gynecology: Journal of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists >Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy Compared With Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy.
【24h】

Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy Compared With Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy.

机译:机器人Sa与腹部Sa的短期结果。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE:: To compare short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy with abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. METHODS:: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing robotic to abdominal sacrocolpopexy with placement of permanent mesh. The primary outcome was vaginal vault support on 6-week postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system examination. Secondary outcomes included blood loss, operative time, length of stay, blood transfusion, pulmonary embolus, gastrointestinal or genitourinary tract injury, ileus, bowel obstruction, postoperative fever, pneumonia, wound infection, and urinary retention. RESULTS:: The analysis included 178 patients (73 robotic and 105 abdominal sacrocolpopexy). There were no differences in age, race, or body mass index. Robotic sacrocolpopexy showed slight improvement on POP-Q "C" point (-9 compared with -8, P=.008) when compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy and was associated with less blood loss (103+/-96 mL compared with 255+/-155 mL, P<.001), longer total operative time (328+/-55 minutes compared with 225+/-61 minutes, P<.001), shorter length of stay (1.3+/-0.8 days compared with 2.7+/-1.4 days, P<.001), and a higher incidence of postoperative fever (4.1% compared with 0.0%, P=.04). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. Operative time remained significantly greater in the robotic group (P<.001), and estimated blood loss remained lower (P<.001) when controlling for possible confounders. CONCLUSION:: Robotic sacrocolpopexy demonstrated similar short-term vaginal vault support compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy, with longer operative time, less blood loss, and shorter length of stay. Long-term data are needed to assess the durability of this new minimally invasive procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: II.
机译:目的:比较机器人sa腔abdominal与腹部sa腔pop对阴道穹ault脱垂的近期疗效。方法::我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,比较了机器人to腹腔结肠pop置术和永久性网孔放置的情况。主要结果是术后6周盆腔器官脱垂定量(POP-Q)系统检查得到的阴道穹顶支持。次要结果包括失血,手术时间,住院时间,输血,肺栓塞,胃肠道或泌尿生殖道损伤,肠梗阻,肠梗阻,术后发烧,肺炎,伤口感染和尿retention留。结果:该分析包括178例患者(73例机器人和105例腹腔pop肉)。年龄,种族或体重指数没有差异。与腹部sa腔机器人相比,机器人sa腔机器人在POP-Q“ C”点上显示出轻微改善(-9与-8,P = .008相比),并且失血量较少(103 +/- 96 mL,与255 + /相比) -155 mL,P <.001),更长的总手术时间(328 +/- 55分钟,而225 +/- 61分钟,P <.001),住院时间更短(1.3 +/- 0.8天,而2.7) +/- 1.4天,P <.001),术后发烧发生率更高(4.1%,而0.0%,P = .04)。其他次要结局无差异。在控制可能的混杂因素时,机器人组的手术时间仍然明显更长(P <.001),并且估计失血量仍然更低(P <.001)。结论:机器人sa腔穿刺术显示出与腹部cro腔穿刺术相比相似的短期阴道穹support支持,手术时间更长,失血更少,住院时间更短。需要长期数据来评估这种新的微创手术的持久性。证据级别:: II。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号